This amendment is a drafting change to improve the cross-reference between new section 125(3D) and 125ZA(4)(ba) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Amendment 38, page 65, line 26, at end insert—

“unless the Registrar considers it appropriate for the application to be made at such earlier time as may be specified by the Registrar.”

This amendment will enable the Registrar to allow an application to undergo a further emergency control assessment under section 133B(4) to be made before the end of the six month period referred to in new section 133B(5A).

This amendment is a drafting change to improve the cross-reference between new section 125(2D) and 125(5A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Amendment 40, page 69, line 30, leave out paragraph 22.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 88

This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.

Amendment 41, page 72, line 2, leave out from “assessment” to end of line 3 and insert

“—

(i) under section 125(2C) or 129(1B), or

(ii) as mentioned in section 125(5)(a)(ii) or 129(5ZA),”.

This amendment amends new subsection 133B(2A), inserting references to section 129(1B) and section 129(5ZA) to ensure that the ability to re-take failed emergency control assessments applies to assessments taken in connection with licences as well as to those taken in connection with registration.

Amendment 42, page 72, line 15, at end insert—

“unless the Registrar considers it appropriate for the application to be made at such earlier time as may be specified by the Registrar.”

This amendment makes the same change for Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill that amendment 38 makes for Part 1 of Schedule 2.

Amendment 43, page 72, line 37, at end insert—

“Part 5 has effect as if after section 133D there were inserted—

“133E Direction to disregard emergency control assessment requirement

(1) This section applies where a person has been required—

(a) under section 125(2C) or 129(1B), or

(b) as mentioned in section 125(5)(a)(ii) or 129(5ZA),

to submit himself for an emergency control assessment.

(2) At any time before the assessment takes place the Registrar may withdraw the requirement (in which case this Part applies as if the requirement had never been imposed).

(3) At any time after the assessment takes place the Registrar may direct that the requirement is to be disregarded for the purposes of this Part (and accordingly any condition that the person holds an emergency certificate is to cease to apply).

(4) Notice of—

(a) the withdrawal of a requirement under subsection (2), or

(b) a direction under subsection (3),

must be given to the person on whom the requirement was imposed.””

This amendment extends what was new section 128ZZA so that the Registrar’s powers under the section cover emergency control assessments in connection with licences. The new section is inserted after section 133D to reflect its revised content. The amendment which inserted new section 128ZZA is removed by amendment 40.

( ) in the second column, for “for registration as disabled driving instructor” substitute “to be registered in respect of driving instruction”;”.

Amendments 46, 47, 48 and 49 add further consequential amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, to reflect the amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988 made by Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Amendment 47, page 73, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) In the entry for section 133C(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in the second column, omit “disabled”.

(4) In the entry for section 133D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in the second column, for “disabled persons” substitute “persons required to hold an emergency control certificates”.”

23 Jun 2014 : Column 89

See amendment 46.

Amendment 48, page 73, line 32, at end insert—

(aa) in the second column, for “for registration as disabled driving instructor” substitute “to be registered in respect of driving instruction”;”.

See amendment 46.

Amendment 49, page 73, line 33, at end insert—

‘(3) In the entry for section 133C(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in the second column, omit “disabled”.

(4) In the entry for section 133D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in the second column for “disabled persons” substitute “persons required to hold emergency control certificates”.”—(Oliver Heald.)

See amendment 46.

Schedule 9

Regulation of the use of roads and railways

Amendment made: 51, page 122, line 26, at end insert—

“Part A1

Duration of driving licences to be granted to drivers with relevant or prospective disabilities

A1 Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (licensing of drivers of vehicles) is amended as follows.A2 In section 99 (duration of licences of drivers of motor vehicles of classes other than any prescribed class of goods vehicle or any prescribed class of passenger-carrying vehicle), in subsection (1)(b) (duration of licence to be granted to person suffering from relevant or prospective disability), for the words from “of not more than” to “may determine” substitute “as the Secretary of State may determine which shall be a period—

(i) of not more than ten years and not less than one year, ending on or before the seventieth anniversary of the applicant’s date of birth, or

(ii) where, at the time the licence is granted, there are less than three years until that seventieth anniversary or where the licence is granted on or after that anniversary, of not more than three years and not less than one year”.

(b) after “or less” insert “or, where sub-paragraph (ii) of section 99(1)(b) applies, for three years or less”.”—(Oliver Heald.)

This amendment increases the period for which a driving licence for non-vocational drivers suffering from a relevant or prospective disability can be granted from a maximum of three years to a maximum of ten years, ending no later than the driver’s 70th birthday. Once a driver is over 67, the maximum is three years.

‘(3) The Secretary of State must lay the terms of reference of a review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo):
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 14 and 15.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 90

Amendment 63, in clause 55, page 41, line 26, at end insert—

‘(14) The power conferred by subsection (1) may not be exercised until after the BBC’s Royal Charter has next been reviewed.”

Government amendments 20 and 22.

Helen Goodman:
I want to speak to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), as well as to the Government amendments.

Clause 54 puts a duty on the Secretary of State to review the sanctions on those who own a television but fail to pay the licence fee. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay the review’s terms of reference before both Houses. Clause 55 gives the Secretary of State a power to decriminalise sanctions on those who fail to pay the licence fee. Our amendment would prevent this power from being used before the completion of the next review of the BBC’s royal charter.

The BBC is a universal service, and the licence fee is a universal payment for anyone with a television. The licence fee is not a tax; it is a guarantee of the BBC’s independence. The BBC is the most trusted source of news in the United Kingdom, with 58% of people rating it as their most trusted news source.

Kelvin Hopkins:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC is trusted not just in Britain but across the world, and when other broadcasting services are compared to it, they take it as flattery or a compliment?

Helen Goodman:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The BBC is now one of the great British brands and it exports across the world.

In the evolution of British broadcasting, the licence fee has gained broad support. Nearly everyone in the UK uses the BBC each week—it has 97% reach—which helps to explain why support for the licence fee is at 53%, up from only 31% in 2004, and is ahead of the 17% support for subscriptions and the 26% support for advertising. It is the top choice for funding the BBC across all ages and all socio-economic groups, whether people are in Freeview, Sky or Virgin households.

Not just the public but other broadcasters appreciate the licence fee, since they have built their business models using finance from advertising, sponsorship and subscription on the assumption that the BBC will not enter those markets and that, as a result, the size of those markets will be fairly stable. Labour believes that the licence fee is the best funding model.

Kelvin Hopkins:
I apologise for intervening again so quickly, but I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s point. The fact is that we have quality television across the piece in Britain because of the BBC. If it were not for the BBC, standards might drop severely.

Helen Goodman:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one wants people to go to prison for non-payment of the licence fee. Last year, 165,000 people failed to pay, and 51 were jailed for non-payment of the associated fines, even though people can pay by instalment. Clearly, we need some sanctions to ensure payment. The question is whether the current sanctions are the right ones. That is why we have agreed to a review of the sanctions.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 91

Our amendment 62 would require the Secretary of State to lay the review’s terms of reference before Parliament, because we want a proper, analytical and unbiased review. I wrote to the Solicitor-General’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who has responsibility for communications, about this matter on 7 April.

Such a review should cover the impact of a change on the level of licence fee evasion. It would be helpful to have historical data on evasion rates. According to the TV licensing database, the statistics on the socio-economic background of unlicensed properties show that 38% are ABs, 29% are C1s, 13% are C2s, 8% are Ds and 11.5% are Es. Those figures are broadly in line with the socio-economic background of UK properties as a whole. That does not translate to the socio-economic status of those prosecuted or imprisoned for non-payment of the licence fee, but it indicates that there is higher evasion among better-off households.

The review should cover the impact on the BBC’s finances. Without that information, we will not know the full impact of evasion. Estimates suggest that a 1% increase in non-payment might lead to a £35 million loss to the BBC. It has said:

“If Licence Fee evasion were to double to around 10%, the BBC would have an estimated…£200 million less per annum for content and services—equivalent to the combined budget of BBC4 and our two children’s channels, CBeebies and CBBC, for example. Due to low rates of evasion at present, an additional £6.7m was available to spend on BBC content in 2012/13.”

Obviously, if evasion went up, such investment would no longer be possible.

The review needs to look at the impact of new technology and the possibility of ending the BBC’s universal offer. Currently, the BBC cannot switch off the signal, so what would happen if it could?

7.30 pm

The review also needs to look at alternative sanctions. Should those be a mixture of criminal and civil penalties? Licence fee evasion currently attracts a level 3 penalty, which is in line with other criminal offences, such as using a vehicle untaxed or without insurance. The maximum fine for non-payment is £1,000, although magistrates take account of a person’s income and employment status. The average fine levied last year was about £170, and it was significantly lower for the unemployed. In contrast, civil penalties tend to be fixed at a single level for all affected.

I am sure the Minister knows that under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the Government intend to raise maximum fine limits across category 1 to category 5 offences. Increasing maximum fines is the Government’s decision. However, the magistrates court sentencing guidelines will consider that when they are finally being tweaked.

The Government amendments are relevant to this particular point. We are content with Government amendments 14, 20 and 22, but I would be grateful if the Solicitor-General gave the House an explanation of Government amendment 15. Why are the Government unwilling to set the penalties on this occasion? Are they thinking of establishing a new quango, or would it be an extra duty that he would give to Ofcom?

23 Jun 2014 : Column 92

The review also needs to look at the cost of collection now and at any alternatives. Obviously, we do not want the costs of collection to rise. Similarly, it is important to look at the costs to the courts now, and again, we would not want those costs to rise if we changed the system.

My understanding is that although licence fee evasion cases make up around 10% of magistrates court criminal cases, the vast majority are heard uncontested and in bulk, with an average presentation time of three minutes. They account for less than 0.3% of court time, so I hope very much that this is not a major plank of the Government’s policy justification.

We also think it would be a good idea to look at other relevant experiences to see whether that would improve the quality of forecasting the effects of changing the system, such as the DVLA, subscription channels, utilities and the council tax. We understand that the DVLA has had to write off around one third of all unpaid fines for non-renewal of vehicle tax, as it is too hard to collect. Of the two-thirds they pursue, less than half are paid. That does not augur well for the BBC licence fee.

Currently, the BBC cannot stop people who do not pay the licence fee using its services, so it is more vulnerable to payment evasion than its competitors, such as Virgin and Sky, which can disconnect non-payers, or the utilities, which can install prepayment meters. Furthermore, around 10% of households have missed or made only partial payments on a utility bill. If licence fee evasion were to increase to that level, it would result in a reduction of around £200 million to the BBC’s revenue. We also think it would be helpful for the Government to look at any international experience. All those are factors that we would want to see in the terms of reference for a good review.

Amendment 63 is even more important. We need to look at the BBC’s finances in the round. The royal charter review is the opportunity for a complete assessment of the role and strategy of the BBC. Changing financing without reference to strategy and role risks producing an unsustainable position. We do not want to see a salami-slicing of the BBC’s position or the insidious undermining of this great national institution, which, if I may say, Mr Deputy Speaker, seems to be the intent of some of the Minister’s more right-wing colleagues, who are not even sitting in the Chamber today, even though they initiated the whole debate. The impact on other broadcasters matters as well. The royal charter review is an opportunity for them and the public to engage fully with the issues.

The mix we have of large and small broadcasters, public service and commercial, has produced the best television in the world. It is a credit to our country, a huge economic success, and a powerhouse of creativity. It is also a delicate balance and not a trinket to be played with. That is why any change to the licence fee must be properly considered at the time of the royal charter review.

Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con):
I wish to speak briefly on this matter. I have a lot of sympathy with the Opposition’s views, and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is right: we have a lot to be proud of. I am always wary of using the phrase, “It is the envy of the world”, but we have a superb television service and, largely, the British Broadcasting Corporation is responsible for that.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 93

There are those on the Government Benches—I have some sympathy with some of my, as the hon. Lady would put it, “right-wing colleagues”—who worry about the political bias of the BBC. Even its former director-general, Mr Mark Thompson, has referred to that. None the less, I do not think any of us can deny that the BBC does a very good public service with its broadcasting, and it is one that is recognised throughout the world. My concern is this: we are living in a fast-changing world and the notion that the BBC’s licence fee can remain in aspic as the only model of funding is one that would be dangerous for the BBC, as well as for all of us, necessarily to hold close to our hearts.

Criminalisation is also something that I want to speak about briefly. When my late mother died, she was living alone. She had been widowed for some years, and she died in September 2010. I took on the responsibility for looking after her affairs in the home in which she had lived prior to it being sold, which took place some months later. I was appalled by the experience that I had, which I am sure is one shared by many hundreds of thousands of our fellow countrymen in a similar position. Literally on a fortnightly basis, we got threatening letters from the BBC’s licensing department, saying that we were committing a criminal offence by not having a licence. There is a sense, I am afraid, in which the BBC regards every single home as being fair game, whether anyone is living there or, indeed, using a television set. It certainly was not terribly good public relations, not just for me personally, but, I suspect, for many other people who go through that particular rigmarole. There is a sense that the BBC feels it has the right to claim, almost with menaces, moneys, when the particular circumstances of my mother having passed away made it even more upsetting to get one letter after another in this way.

David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con):
My hon. Friend makes an important point by talking about his mother’s circumstances. My constituents, too, have had similar experiences with the TV licence and the point they are trying to make is that these approaches by the BBC are overly aggressive. That has helped the push towards the introduction of the amendments.

Mark Field:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For those of us who are broadly supportive of the BBC and its values, it is very upsetting to see that aggressive approach, particularly in circumstances such as the ones that I have pointed out, which affect, as I said, many tens of thousands of our fellow countrymen on a day-to-day basis. The notion is put across that somehow, if we lose the money, we will not be able to have CBeebies and BBC4, but again, there has to be a sense of prioritisation in the BBC, which has a very privileged position with its money—some £2.5 billion a year—that it is able to rely on in order to make the excellent programmes to which we have all referred.

I hope that we will have a sensible debate—in fairness to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, she has presented some sensible proposals—on how our British Broadcasting Corporation will be funded. The only warning sign is that we are increasingly living in a world of pay-per-view and a proliferation of channels. Like me, the hon. Lady grew up at a time when, until 1982, there were only three channels. A fourth channel then emerged, and suddenly we had a plethora of channels

23 Jun 2014 : Column 94

that we can rely on. As a result, if the BBC is to play as important a part in public life in the decades to come, it must be wise to the fact that there will have to be changes to its funding mechanism, without immediately accusing the House, and others who wish it to survive well into the 21st and future centuries, of being aggressively anti what it does.

I hope that the Solicitor-General will have some proposals regarding what I have said, and particularly that he will ensure that the good will towards the BBC in the hearts of many of our fellow countrymen remains intact. Some of the BBC’s antics are the sorts of things that have allowed people who would otherwise oppose the amendments to hold the views expressed in one or two of them, although, as we see, they will not necessarily be discussed to any great extent.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a brief contribution. I look forward to an interesting debate, which I expect will take place not just on the Floor of the House but will make up an important part of discussions on the renewal of the charter in 2016 and beyond.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab):
It is a delight to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and an enormous shame that those who drafted the original clauses are not present to take part in the debate that they began.

The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald) rose—

Chris Bryant:
I do not really think the Solicitor-General should be replying to a debate on broadcasting, but I am happy to give way.

The Solicitor-General:
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that we did have a debate in Committee, in which the hon. Gentleman who tabled the amendments was a very active member, and he was satisfied with the Government’s approach.

Chris Bryant:
Of course—it stands to reason that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present; otherwise, he would not have been able to speak to the amendments. That is a rather redundant, kind of tautologous point—[Interruption.] No, the debate is not finished and I am sorry that the Solicitor-General is adopting that approach. The honest truth is that the Government have approached this whole issue in completely the wrong order. The amendments tabled this evening are the only way we can correct that order because we are putting the cart before the horse.

Surely we should decide what the point of the BBC is and how it should be financed, and then decide on sanctions should those things not be met—not the other way round. Under the Bill, however, before any review of the licence fee and the next charter, it has been decided in principle that there should be a change to the arrangement on sanctions for not paying the licence fee. That is completely the wrong way round. The Government have caved in to some frankly preposterous Back-Bench campaigning, and it is a shame that those campaigners are not present to see the end of this debate and listen to the next stage. The discussion is far from over.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 95

If the Education Secretary were here and looking for a list of British values, I would tell him that I would put the BBC and British broadcasting at the top of that list. I have spoken to politicians from India who said that the style of broadcasting that we invented in this country and exported around the world inspired them to have free and independent broadcasting in their country. I have known politicians from Chile, Argentina and Spain who talked of sitting under the kitchen table and hiding while listening to British broadcasting on the radio—largely through the World Service as it was in the past—because they believed that was the only way they could get an independent source of news.

David Rutley:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant:
In one moment.

The BBC is not just about independent news; it is about a long tradition of being able to tell a story about British society in a way that incorporates the whole of human experience. That tradition probably stretches way back to Chaucer, Shakespeare, Marlowe and all the rest, and I believe that the modern BBC sits solidly and squarely slap bang in the middle of that tradition, and is itself a British value. The fact that it is funded by the licence fee is part of that—everybody gets to pay for and share in it, and everybody gets something out of it. I know there are people who believe that the licence fee should pay only for high-minded broadcasting—perhaps for news, classical broadcasting and the like.

7.45 pm

The Solicitor-General:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant:
In a moment.

Many of my constituents are on low incomes and in a deprived community, but they are happy to pay the licence fee because it guarantees something for everybody. For them, the sport on television, which would probably be commercially available elsewhere, is public service broadcasting; “EastEnders” is public service broadcasting. The quality that is brought by ordinary broadcasting to everyday lives is part of what people in my constituency believe to be public service broadcasting.

David Rutley rose—

The Solicitor-General rose—

Chris Bryant:
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) because I said I would.

David Rutley:
The hon. Gentleman misses the point. No Government Member in this debate or in Committee was questioning the values of the BBC.

Chris Bryant:
Yes they were.

David Rutley:
No, not the values. Some might have questioned some of the services, but not the values or the news services and values that are espoused there—absolutely not. The key issue is whether the late-payment approach should be decriminalised, and that is what all Government Members were keen to do.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 96

Chris Bryant:
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who I know is fair minded. If he were to return to the previous debates, I think he would say that the fundamental argument made by those proposing these measures is that the licence fee should pay only for high-end broadcasting. Frankly, I think of that as getting the poor to pay for broadcasting for the rich. That is why I believe in a licence fee that is paid by every household and guarantees something for everybody.

Kelvin Hopkins:
I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend. The licence fee promotes social cohesion, and the alternative would promote social division. He is making the point extremely well.

Chris Bryant:
Absolutely. I am not opposed to the idea of ending present licensing offences per se, although I think there are dangers in that which I will come to in a moment. However, doing it in this order, and in a Deregulation Bill that has nothing to do with broadcasting or licensing, is particularly bizarre. On the whole I dislike Christmas tree legislation, which is what the Bill has become, and these proposals are wholly inappropriate. If we had a broadcasting Bill, I would be happy to see these matters debated in the round and in the context of broadcasting. I think we would have a fuller Chamber—better viewing figures perhaps, and not just BBC executives who are doubtless following every second of this debate.

As we consider current offences and whether they should be swept away, we must bear in mind the fact that broadcasting always tends towards monopoly as that is its fundamental nature. It is very expensive to make a programme, but it is more or less as expensive to show that programme to one person as it is to show it to 5,000, 2 million or 5 million people.

Mark Field:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant:
If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish this argument, I will give way.

I think it appropriate, especially in markets of the size we have in the United Kingdom, to ensure that a pot of money is available for local, British programming—programmes made in this country that reflect its interests, not just in terms of news and current affairs, but drama, comedy, religion, and all the different genres. That is an essential part of ensuring that monopoly does not always triumph.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to the £2.7 billion that the BBC is guaranteed as though that were an enormous amount of money. It is nothing compared with Sky, which has £7 billion a year; and how much programming does it produce that is then exported round the world on behalf of Britain? To what extent does it sell Britain abroad? How much does it reflect the whole of British society? It is difficult enough to get a Sky journalist to travel outside the M25, let alone all the way down to Wales, for heaven’s sake. That is why I believe we must have an alternative in the public sector to the monopoly that will otherwise be set up.

Mark Field:
I had hoped to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about this measure being in a Christmas tree Bill. I agree with him fundamentally that it would be better to have it in a proper broadcasting Bill, but the difficulty is that we focus our minds on the BBC only

23 Jun 2014 : Column 97

when the renewal of the charter comes up, which is not necessarily the best time to look at these things in the broadest sense. However, I disagree with what he said about Sky. Ultimately, we are all consumers of Sky. It is the market that decides, and if there were no market for it, Sky would not have £7 billion in its coffers. We have £2.7 billion in the BBC, which I think does a terrific job, given that amount of money, but it is right that the market should prevail to a certain extent.

Chris Bryant:
Perhaps what the hon. Gentleman says reflects his constituency, but for the majority of the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, the only way in which my constituents could get BBC 3, BBC 4 or, in most parts of it, BBC 2, let alone Channel 4, was to pay Sky. It had an absolute monopoly on digital television in the south Wales valleys. Because of the mixture of platforms, the geography, the various ways in which, for instance, mansion block flats in London work and all the rest of it, it is important that we have a public service broadcaster with a commitment and a statutory requirement to deliver to every household and provide something for everybody: the 83-year-old who likes listening to Chaucer and Mantovani—if there is a person who likes only that combination—and the 18-year-old who is interested only in the kind of things that are shown on BBC 3.

That is an important commitment and we need that combination, because as somebody once put it to me, if we are to have one 800 lb gorilla in the forest, in the shape of Sky, it is a good idea to have a second 800 lb gorilla in the forest, because that is safer for everybody. The competition we have in the UK between public service broadcasting and the commercial sector is positive. We were wrong in the past to campaign against having ITV and the commercial sector and all the rest. It is right to have that mixture. The two feed off each other, and Sky is now finally learning that it is a good idea to produce programmes of its own.

The licence fee is a phenomenal success for this country. The £2.7 billion that the hon. Gentleman talks of is basically an investment in production, which is why programmes are sold all around the world. We are the only country in Europe that manages to be a net exporter of programming. That might be because of our history, but I think it is also because we have a strong BBC. I also think that the alternatives to the licence fee that are experienced elsewhere in Europe, which many people tout—for instance, Germany has a mixture of a licence fee and advertising, others have a public service broadcasting model based just on advertising, and the Netherlands has a fixed amount of income tax—are more flawed than the licence fee. To paraphrase Churchill, yes, the licence fee may be terrible—for all the reasons that I am sure people can adduce: it is not progressive, it bears down unequally, it affects everybody, whether they are rich or poor, and all the rest of it—but it is better than all the alternatives.

Chris Bryant:
I am not going to give way, because the hon. Gentleman was not here for the beginning of the debate. I would normally be very generous, but he was not here even for the beginning of my speech, let alone the moving of the amendment.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 98

David Rutley:
I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s argument as closely as I can. He makes the point about how important it is to ensure proper programming and how important the licence fee is, but what we are talking about in this debate is whether it should be a criminal offence to pay the fee late or to be unable to pay it. There are many other worthy providers of great public services that do not have that right. That is what we are discussing.

Chris Bryant:
It is not, actually. What we are discussing is the order in which the Government should proceed—in other words, whether they should first decide what the future sanction should be and then review the licence fee, or whether they should first review the licence fee and the charter and then decide what the sanction should be. I believe the latter is the only logical and commonsensical way of proceeding. That is why I am strongly supportive of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has tabled, because that is precisely what they do. It would be extraordinary if the Government were to oppose our amendments this evening. I know that the Solicitor-General is sometimes a very reasonable man—[Interruption]—although he has not got his reasonable face on now, I see.

The Solicitor-General:
It is because you would not give way to me.

Chris Bryant:
I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Solicitor-General:
The debate we have been having, in Committee and with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), is about enforcement of the licence fee, not about the principle.

Chris Bryant:
I have read all the debates, which were actually about fundamental principles as well, and the fundamental principle for me is that we should do the whole policy in the round, rather than doing it piecemeal in a deregulation Bill.

That takes me to the key point about sanctions. Whatever regime one moves to—whether one decriminalises or not—one needs some form of sanction if one is not fundamentally to undermine the licence fee. As I understand it, the Government do not want to undermine the licence fee. They still support it—[Interruption.] From the look on the Solicitor-General’s face, I see that he is not so sure about that. However, broadly speaking, given that the majority of people in this country support the licence fee and believe that although it might not be perfect—they may support decriminalisation—it is none the less the best way to finance the BBC, it is only common sense for us to ensure that some of form of sanction is available.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland pointed out, we would need only a very small increase in the rate of licence fee evasion to see a significant fall in BBC income. I can imagine Government Members then being the first to say, “You can’t cut spending on programming in my area”, or “You can’t cut the regional current affairs programme”, or “You can’t cut spending on orchestras”, or “You can’t cut spending on programmes that are produced and delivered in my part of the

23 Jun 2014 : Column 99

country.” However, I say to them that if the Government make it easier for people to evade the licence fee, because they have not put in place sanctions—

Andrew Bridgen rose—

Chris Bryant:
I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He was not here for the beginning of the debate. End of story, I am afraid.

If the Government do not put proper sanctions in place, they are in danger of cutting the overall income for the BBC. On the whole, I think the idea of a summary review of the licence fee, as well as the way in which Governments have sometimes tended to proceed with a new royal charter, is problematic in a modern democracy. It has meant going through the back door of Buckingham palace, rather than in through the front door of this palace in Westminster. On the whole, I would prefer a proper debate in the round. If there are going to be changes after the next charter review and the next licence fee review, that is the time for us to make proper decisions about how we ensure that the licence fee is not undermined but that some of the egregious examples we have all heard of—people being been sent to prison for what is a minor offence—are dealt with too.

As I have said before, in many ways I agree that the licence fee is terrible—it bears down heavily on the poor, just as it bears down on the rich—but it also means that the poor have an opportunity to get quality television. There are very few things in this country about which one can genuinely say with one’s hand on one’s heart, “We do it better than anyone else in the world”, but I honestly think we do broadcasting better than any other country in the world. By proceeding in the wrong order, because of how the Government have mishandled this debate, there is a danger that we will undermine the licence fee and break something that is fundamentally a British value—good public service broadcasting.

8 pm

The Solicitor-General:
We have had a short but lively debate, and I would like to put it on record that no Government Member said that the BBC was not a fantastic institution, or anything of that sort. Our debate was not about the licence fee, although the charter review is coming up, and that will have a process of its own; it was about enforcement.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—I pay tribute to the way he put his case—made the point that there are many poor and vulnerable people who struggle with the licence fee, and they can be criminalised and even sent to prison for failure to pay it. He clearly felt concerned about them, and made his case in that way. It was not developed as some kind of veiled attack on the BBC. I think it right to look at decriminalisation. Even the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seemed to accept that at one point, and he even seemed to accept that it would be right to have a review of the sort proposed by the Government. Again, I do not see much cross-party disagreement there.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 100

Clearly, the Government will not take up the invitation of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and say what the outcome of the review and the penalties will be—something I thought she said. She asks why the Government are unwilling to set the penalties now; the answer is that we have not yet had the review. Whether one particular body will have the duty of setting the variable fees is another issue for the review; we want a proper review that will look into all aspects of the issue. As to what analysis has been done of the potential impacts—positive and negative—of switching to a civil rather than a criminal enforcement, or of having the option of both, we are having a review precisely to determine that. The whole point is that we do not want to prejudge the review.

Helen Goodman:
My question was not why the Government will not decide the penalties at this juncture—I completely accept what the Solicitor-General said about that—but why the Government were offloading the task of setting the penalties on to another body.

The Solicitor-General:
There will clearly need to be a mechanism to effect the change; someone will have to decide what the variable penalties should be, and I shall come on to that in a moment. I do not think it right, however, to prejudge who or which body should do the setting. The hon. Lady suggested one particular body, but we are happy to let the review look into these issues and come up with its thoughts on what sort of regime should or should not be approved.

The amendments are designed to achieve two objectives. Under amendment 62,

“The Secretary of State must lay the terms of reference of a review”

of the TV licensing enforcement regime

“before each House of Parliament.”

Those would be key papers for the review, and there would be others. What normally happens, and what we propose, is that those papers are deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. It would be unusual to lay them before the House. That would be the normal and best way forward, and it would achieve the same effect as the amendment—that is, it would ensure that the House of Commons was fully aware of the details.

Amendment 63 looks to ensure that the power to decriminalise the failure to have a TV licence via secondary legislation, either by replacing the criminal regime with a civil regime, or by enabling the imposition of civil penalties for such offences, would not be exercised until after the conclusion of the charter process. As previously mentioned, this power would need to be exercised in the light of the review’s findings, and considering the full impacts, costs and benefits to licence payers, to the court system—where, as the hon. Lady said, changes are being made—and to businesses of any changes to the enforcement regime. That would be considered in the context of the charter review.

At this stage, it would be premature to put restrictions on the timing of when the power may be exercised, given that the charter review has not yet started, and the Government have not set out the detail of the process and the timing. The Government therefore resist the amendments on the following grounds. First, the key papers will be deposited in the Library in the normal way and, secondly, we do not want to restrict what

23 Jun 2014 : Column 101

should or could happen, in terms of decriminalisation, by aligning the legislation with the timing of the charter review, although the legislation would be in the context of the review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made the point that we are living in a changing world. That is true, both as regards the courts and how they go about enforcing, and about the media and broadcasting world. It is also true in respect of how we look at enforcement. Given that so many public services have civil enforcement and that it can be effective, it is certainly right, I think, at this point to have a review, and to try to move away from the aggressive approach that my hon. Friend mentioned. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), and I have encountered the issue in my constituency postbag and at surgeries. Elderly people who feel that they have paid their licence fee—they often have—can be threatened with bills, letters about going to court and so forth, yet it is often the TV licensing authorities that have made the mistakes. A civil approach, where at least the threat of court is not frightening elderly, vulnerable and poor people, might be a better way forward. It is certainly something worth reviewing. On the issue of excellence and free markets, it is right that both can deliver.

Chris Bryant:
I got a bit confused with all the different reviews we seem to be talking about. We are talking about a review of the charter, which is coming along; and a review of the system of sanctions, which may lead to recommendations on what needs to change and on the use of the secondary legislation included in the Bill. All I am saying is that the latter should not come before the former.

The Solicitor-General:
I hope the hon. Gentleman would accept that we are where we are. That may not be novel, but it is true. [Interruption.] It does. The Bill had within its scope the enforcement arrangements for the licence fee. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire—not me—was concerned about the issue, which garnered considerable support in the House. He was persuasive in saying that it was right to review this area and take the powers at this convenient opportunity, in case the review comes to the same conclusion as him. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda is very experienced in these matters and has had a role in the leadership of House operations, so he understands these things. This is not such a novel and surprising thing. It is actually a good opportunity to tackle an issue that has arisen in Parliament.

Chris Bryant:
What I think I understand by that—I hope the Solicitor-General will confirm whether I am right, or will correct me if I have it wrong—is that his Government would or could bring in and use the secondary legislation before the charter review happened. Is that his intention?

The Solicitor-General:
It is certainly not the intention to do anything that does not take into account the full context—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but there is a full context to the charter review. It is difficult when the process has not been set out and nobody is aware of the full details, so one needs to be wary of tying one’s hands too much. All I am saying is

23 Jun 2014 : Column 102

that some commitments have been made about the time scale for the review; that is in the legislation. We know when the charter review will take place, and we know that nothing will happen until the review has been completed, taking into account all the various points I have made. That should satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned variable fees; they are provided for in the Government amendments, which also deal with the question of extent and the Crown dependencies. I commend Government amendments 14 and 15 and 20 and 22, and urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Helen Goodman:
I did not find the Solicitor-General’s arguments very convincing. He seems to want to retain the freedom to fiddle around with the way in which the licence fee operates before we have seen the results of the royal charter review. None the less, I do not wish to press either amendment 62 or amendment 63 to a vote, although I suspect that amendment 62 may be re-examined in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55

TV licensing: alternatives to criminal sanctions

Amendments made: 14, page 40, line 24, after “be” insert “—

(a) ”

This amendment is a drafting amendment related to amendment 15

.

Amendment 15, page 40, line 25, at end insert

“, or

(b) such amount, not exceeding a maximum amount specified in the regulations, as may be determined by a body so specified.”—(The Solicitor-General)

In the event of the Secretary of State deciding to make regulations replacing the TV licensing offences with a civil penalty regime, this amendment would allow the regulations to provide for the amount of the penalty to be determined by a body specified in the regulations, subject to a maximum amount specified in the regulations

(a) provide that section 10(1) does not apply to a person to the extent that the person is carrying on activities that do not require a licence by virtue of the order;

(b) specify the maximum amount of a person’s liability under section 10(1) so far as the liability relates to the carrying on of activities that do not require a licence by virtue of the order.”

(3) In section 5 (terms of licence), after subsection (2) insert—

“(3) A licence must specify the maximum amount of the licensee’s liability to indemnify Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom under section 10 in respect of activities authorised by the licence.”

(4) In section 10 (obligation to indemnify government against claims), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to—

23 Jun 2014 : Column 103

(a) any limit on the amount of a person’s liability that is specified in a licence, and

(b) any order made under section 3(3).”

(5) The Secretary of State may vary any licence under section 4 of the 1986 Act that is held at the time when this section comes into force so as to specify the maximum amount of the licencee’s liability under section 10 of that Act.

(6) A variation under subsection (5) is to be made by giving notice in writing to the licensee.

(7) The power under section 15(6) of the 1986 Act may be exercised so as to extend to any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any British overseas territory any provision made by this section (subject to any specified exceptions or modifications).” —(Oliver Heald.)

Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986 requires people carrying out certain space activities to indemnify the UK government against claims arising out of the activities. The new clause makes provision for limiting the amount of the liability under the indemnity

.

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle):
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 6—Power of HMRC to disclose information for purposes of certain litigation.

Government new clause 7—Combining different forms of subordinate legislation.

Government new clause 20—Tenancy deposits.

Government new clause 21—Short-term use of London accommodation: power to relax restrictions.

Government new clause 22—Electoral Commission: changes to facilitate efficient administration.

Government new clause 23—LGBC for England: changes to facilitate efficient administration.

Government new clause 24—Poisons and explosives precursors.

New clause 8—Replacing homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy—

‘(1) Within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a plan to—

(a) replace the homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy;

(b) review the effectiveness of the current Right to Buy policy.

(2) Before making any further changes to Right to Buy, the Secretary of State must carry out and publish an assessment of the impact of Right to Buy policy on affordable housing supply since 2012.”

This new clause would require the Minister to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of Right to Buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and carry out an assessment of changes since 2012 before making further policy changes

‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.

(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).

(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games period which—

(a) begins with Sunday 27 July 2014, and

(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.

(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Games period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3), of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which— Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).

(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and

(b) ends two months after that day, or with Sunday 3 August 2014 (if that is later).

(5) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.

(6) The “pre-Games period” is the period which—

(a) begins with the day on which this Act is passed, and

(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.

(7) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).

(8) In this section—

(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and

(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”

New clause 13—Suspension of restriction on Sunday trading hours—

‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.

(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).

(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Rugby World Cup 2015 period, which—

(a) begins with Sunday 20 September 2015, and

(b) ends with Sunday 25 October 2015.

(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Rugby Cup period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which—

23 Jun 2014 : Column 105

(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and

(b) ends with Saturday 31 October 2015.

(5) Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).

(6) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.

(7) The “pre-Rugby Cup period” is the period which—

(a) begins on Friday 17 July 2015, and

(b) ends with Friday 11 September 2015.

(8) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).

(9) In this section—

(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and

“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of existing communities and future generations to meet their own needs; and that contributes to the principles that the nation and areas within it should live within their environmental limits, should achieve a sustainable economy and should seek to ensure a strong, healthy and just society.”

This defines sustainable development in terms recommended by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee 2011 inquiry into the National Planning Policy Framework, which drew on the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy.

Government amendments 76, 19, 21 and 77.

Amendment 3, in clause 80, page 53, line 38, at end insert

“, subject to the condition in subsection (2) of that section;”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 2.

Government amendments 25, 50, 52 to 54 and 57.

The Solicitor-General:
This is a substantial group that covers a range of issues, from zero-carbon homes to outer space and back again via the right to buy. Let me begin with new clause 3.

In their growth review, published in March 2011, the Government set out their intention to reform the Outer Space Act 1986 by introducing an upper limit on liability for United Kingdom operators. The aim was to help to level the playing field for United Kingdom companies competing for international business. UK space operators have long argued that the unlimited liability placed on them by section 10 of the Act is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Given the global nature of the space industry, that could result in work being lost to countries from outside the United Kingdom. The licensing regime enables the UK Government—among other things—to offset some of the unlimited liability to which they are exposed under the terms of the United Nations liability convention.

Section 10 of the Act requires licensees to indemnify the Government against any proven third-party costs resulting from their activities. That is an unlimited liability on licensees. As it is not possible to insure against unlimited liability, licensees are required to obtain third-party liability insurance both during the launch and while the satellite is in operation, with the UK Government a named beneficiary. If a claim were to exceed that amount, the Government could seek to recover the balance under section 10 of the Act.

In the growth review, the Government set out their intention of reforming the Act by introducing an upper limit on liability for UK operators. A two-part approach has been undertaken. Part 1—the announcement by the Minister for Universities and Science of a reduction in the compulsory insurance requirement from £100 million to €60 million—was well received. Part 2 involves a legislative change that will cap the unlimited liability at €60 million for the majority of missions. The chosen route for the achievement of that change would give the Secretary of State the power to set or vary the liability limit through the licensing regime, which will provide flexibility, and, we hope, lead to a level playing field. It may also help with the development of smaller satellite technology. CubeSats, for instance, offer lower-cost and possibly lower-risk access to space, along with growth opportunities for the UK.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 107

New clause 6—which deals with mesothelioma—and amendment 19 introduce a power to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to supply, without the need for a court order, the work history of deceased persons to their personal representatives and some dependants. That would be for the purpose of making a personal injury claim for the benefit of the deceased’s estate, or making a claim under fatal accidents legislation. The change will benefit the families and dependants of the deceased. It will enable them more quickly and easily to prove their claim for compensation against the person or organisation liable for the injury or death, including compensation for loss of dependency on the deceased. As I know that that proposal has all-party support, I do not intend to deal with it at greater length, but I will of course be happy to say more about it if that is required.

8.15 pm

New clause 7 forms part of the Government’s good law initiative, and would allow different forms of subordinate legislation to be combined in a single statutory instrument when that is appropriate. Rules, regulations and orders could be combined in one statutory instrument. The rationale is that, currently, different forms of statutory instrument cannot generally be combined unless an Act gives an express power for the purpose. That remains the case even if they implement a single policy, or relate to the same subject matter.

The use of a variety of forms of statutory instruments to give effect to a single policy can result in a bewildering combination of different instruments, and can make things harder for users of legislation. Allowing different forms to be combined should create a much more coherent legislative story and policy narrative, while—we hope—reducing the number of administrative burdens and the amount of parliamentary time that is wasted.

New clause 20 concerns tenancy deposits. At this point, let me thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I have let him down once or twice during the Bill’s passage by not accepting his proposals, but on this occasion I want to thank him for tabling new clause 16. I also thank him for subsequently withdrawing it in favour of the technically correct new clause 20, with which, I understand, he is satisfied.

It was never intended that the tenancy deposit protection legislation should apply to a deposit received prior to the date on which legislation came into force in circumstances in which the tenancy subsequently rolled over and continued as a statutory periodic tenancy.

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con):
For the purpose of clarification, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let me also make it clear to the Minister that not only am I satisfied with the Government’s new clause, but it is, quite predictably, far better than the one that I originally tabled, and for that I am extremely grateful.

The Solicitor-General:
I thank my hon. Friend for displaying his customary modesty.

Philip Davies:
I have much to be modest about.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 108

The Solicitor-General:
I do not agree. I think that my hon. Friend makes a huge contribution in the House, although I do not always agree with him.

It was made clear in the briefing the Government published in 2007 that there was no intention of affecting prior deposits. It was also never the intention that landlords who had protected deposits and who had given their tenants information about that protection should then have to reissue the same information about the deposit protection each and every time the tenancy was renewed, although the same deposit would continue to be protected in the same scheme from one tenancy to the next. That, however, was the result of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Superstrike Ltd v. Marino Rodrigues. As a result of that decision, a large number of landlords were at risk of court action and open to a financial penalty, despite having done what the sector and successive Governments considered to be the right thing. Our proposals are broadly similar to those made by my hon. Friend, and will protect landlords who follow Government and tenancy deposit scheme advice from financial penalties and delayed possession proceedings by providing a grace period and making other provision.

New clause 21 deals with short-term lets. It is aimed at an outdated, 40-year old law that restricts householders in London from being able temporarily to let out their homes, or even a spare room, for less than three months without having first secured planning permission for change of use. Currently, failure to secure planning permission in Greater London for short-term letting can result in a fine of up to £20,000. That is not the case in the rest of England, where property owners can let out their homes on a short-term basis without needing permission to do so.

During the 2012 Olympics while we were all encouraging visitors to come to London and join in the celebrations, some people who welcomed visitors into their homes were subject to enforcement action from London boroughs. That was not universal, but I do applaud the boroughs that entered into the spirit and encouraged residents to let out their homes or a spare room. Wimbledon is on at the moment, of course, and Londoners have traditionally rented out spare rooms and homes to people visiting the capital for the championships. The new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to give London residents more of the freedoms enjoyed in other parts of the country.

I have discussed this with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). He made the point that sensitive handling is needed to ensure that regulations covering companies that sub-let regularly are not circumvented by these changes. The regulations have to be properly dealt with in a sensitive way.

Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab):
I entirely agree with what the Minister says about the sensitivity of this matter and the importance of getting it right. The London property market’s problem at the moment is certainly not that it is too long term. With that in mind, does the Minister think there has been sufficient consultation and enough opportunity to consider the full implications, given that the proposal has been brought forward long after all the pre-legislative scrutiny has been finished?

23 Jun 2014 : Column 109

The Solicitor-General:
Clearly the regulations need to be carefully considered and proper consultation is needed to ensure that the effect of the measure, which is to give more freedom to individual householders, is respected while giving proper recognition in the policy to the difficulties the hon. Gentleman mentions, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington also brought to my attention.

Mark Field:
I endorse the view stated earlier that a process of consultation began as recently as February on this issue and has not yet come to a close, so it feels a little strange that this measure has been rushed through in this Bill. That is the tenor of the concerns expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) as well. Why does the Minister think there is a different regime for London? Why was that put into place some 40 years ago and why is the time suddenly now right for it to be changed?

The Solicitor-General:
As I think was said in another part of the country today, London is a super-city: it is an enormous city and it does have unique circumstances. The Government recognise the necessity of working with the London boroughs to design the provision to ensure we achieve the right balance between increasing the freedoms for Londoners and protecting London’s housing supply. We would not want that to be undermined. We are trying to ensure that speculators are not able to buy homes meant for Londoners and rent them permanently as short-term lets.

Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab):
Is the Minister aware that central London authorities such as Westminster, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) will know, Kensington and Chelsea, Camden and Islington, backed almost unanimously by the amenity and neighbourhood associations in those boroughs, have all expressed extremely strong reservations about these proposals, precisely because of the fear that they will lead to a loss of residential stock in what are already highly stressed neighbourhoods?

The Solicitor-General:
Yes, the Government are aware of that, and we have tried to respond, first of all by making the point, as the Department has done, that the London boroughs must be fully involved in the process and also by allowing the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the hon. Lady and other colleagues will have an opportunity to consider the detail of the changes and whether they are appropriate.

Turning to Government new clauses 22 and 23, the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission are independent bodies established by Parliament and overseen by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Currently, both bodies have to provide a five-year corporate plan. The Committee has reviewed governance and suggested a five-year corporate plan should be produced in the first financial year of a Parliament, and the duty to update it and produce a new plan on an annual basis should be removed, although the Committee would retain the right to request updated plans outside this cycle. Value for money studies would take place at the beginning of the five-year period, not annually, and provision would be made to allow the Local Government Boundary Commission to appoint

23 Jun 2014 : Column 110

independent members to its audit committee and other committees. These changes are supported by the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission.

I shall now turn—briefly—to the subject of poisons and explosives precursors. New clause 24 introduces the new schedule inserted by new schedule 2, which abolishes the statutory requirement for a poisons board under the Poisons Act 1972 and introduces a common licensing system for poisons and explosive precursors to streamline the regimes and bring them into line with the latest EU regulations.

I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will wish to comment on new clause 8 and the preserved right to buy and the idea that within one year of Royal Assent a plan should be laid to replace homes that have been sold under right to buy and review the effectiveness of it. Since the revitalisation of right to buy, 19,500 households have achieved their home ownership aspirations, but this is not just about buying; it is also about building. More than £419 million from the right-to-buy sales has been ring-fenced to fund new homes, and I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to keeping the reinvigorated right-to-buy scheme under review.

The impact assessment sets out a wider perspective on right to buy and how the policy will work. The Department for Communities and Local Government publishes quarterly statistics on right-to-buy sales in England and annual statistics on preserved right-to-buy, and live data tables are on the Department’s website. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that, on future stock transfers, the Department for Communities and Local Government has recently published a stock transfer manual. So the Government have set out their position very clearly and the intention is that for transfers completing after 30 September 2014, net proceeds from preserved right-to-buy sales are, within three years, to be used to fund new affordable housing at no greater subsidy cost than under the main affordable homes programme.

Caroline Lucas:
Not enough of that money is properly ring-fenced, and it has been estimated that only about one in every seven homes sold through right to buy has been replaced by more affordable housing. Is the Minister as shocked as I am to discover that in one London borough a third of the council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords, some of whom own dozens of properties that they now rent back at very high rents?

The Solicitor-General:
Of course we can always ask for more, but the point I would make to the hon. Lady is that that one in seven figure is misleading, because the money we are talking about is from extra sales, over and above the profile, and as far as that is concerned, this very considerable sum has been set aside. We are confident that over the next three years we will get the sorts of results I described.

On new clauses 10 to 14 on Sunday trading, I am afraid this time I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, although I will not go on at great length as I am hoping he might have a chance to speak about this. The interests of smaller retailers, the working hours of employees, the effect of extra lorry traffic and the need to have some family day

23 Jun 2014 : Column 111

consideration lead the Government to the view that the current balance does not need changing, although it was for the Olympics, and very successfully so.

Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op):
Does the Solicitor-General agree that with 77% of the public supporting the current regime, it would be madness to change the plans in place now?

8.30 pm

The Solicitor-General:
I would never describe my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley’s plans as mad, but on this occasion I do not agree with them.

Turning to Government amendment 12 and the amendments to remove clause 17, we had a lively debate about insolvency practitioners in Committee. Of course, the profession deserves a great deal of credit for the good work it does in rescuing struggling businesses that still have a viable future, saving jobs and preserving value in the economy. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said in Committee, the World Bank rates our Insolvency Service the seventh best in the world, and it is a service that other countries admire. This has been achieved through innovative policy developments, and we believe that the one we are discussing now—the system of partial authorisation introduced by clause 17 —is a positive development for the sector, for the profession, for creditors and for insolvent companies and individuals.

The proposed system will reduce barriers to entry by enabling would-be insolvency practitioners to qualify in respect of only corporate or personal insolvency; if they want to, they can continue to do both, but those who wish to specialise will benefit from shorter training periods and lower training costs. That will increase competition and bring down fees, and the profession will benefit too. If a firm decides to fund someone through qualification, it will cost them less than it does now. The amount of money involved is substantial: BPP, the leading provider of professional training, charges £3,470 for each of the three courses needed for the professional examinations, and there are many fees on top of that, so we are talking about significant sums—not hundreds of pounds but thousands. The Government have heard arguments against partial authorisation, but have decided to continue with the policy.

Amendment 85, which would remove clause 30, is misguided. It is intended primarily to halt the Government’s proposed changes to the Planning and Energy Act 2008 and is based on a misunderstanding of what we are doing. It would bring to an end all the excellent work we have undertaken with industry and many interested bodies in the sustainability, access and environmental sectors to rationalise the plethora of local standards by regularising them through the building control system. It would also leave in place the considerable range of excessive and ill-considered costs imposed on the housing industry by some local authorities. These standards are holding back development and are a mess.

On journalistic materials, I did promise earlier that we would introduce extensions to the power of the criminal procedure rules to cover the procedure for making certain sorts of applications, ensuring that journalists do not lose any of the statutory protections they currently have.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 112

I need not address the remaining minor and technical amendments at this stage. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the House’s time, but this is a big group of amendments.

Toby Perkins:
I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my declaration of interests.

The fact that the Solicitor-General had to whistle through so many new clauses and amendments says a tremendous amount about the Bill and the way the Government have approached it. We have 49 minutes to debate 43 different new clauses, amendments and new schedules. It is an absolute disgrace and an affront to democracy that this House is being asked to whistle through the approval of very important measures that this Government have brought before us at a moment’s notice.

The Bill was originally an unambitious, predominantly inconsequential list of minor changes to the way we sell yarn and chocolate liqueurs that most people would not much mind or particularly appreciate, mixed in with a few substantially more dangerous provisions. However, it has morphed almost daily into a leviathan of a Bill with a multitude of ill-thought-out, scarcely consulted on clauses, the aims of which are unclear, the consequences of which are uncertain, the benefits of which are unproven, and the coherence of which is absolutely impossible to fathom. If this is the final piece of legislation this Government introduce, it will be a fitting climax for them: unloved, owned by no one, with few advocates, whose central purpose has long since been obscured, and who exist now only to be seen to be doing something, in the hope that, if they hang around for a bit, the polls might take a turn for the better.

The ultimate summary of the Government’s approach was heard when the Solicitor-General said in response to the very reasonable criticisms of his previous Bill that we are where we are. In fact, the Deregulation Bill could be the “we are where we are” Bill. Virtually no one is speaking up for it or offering much in the way of support for it.

We oppose clause 17 because we believe it will dumb down the profession. As the Solicitor-General rightly said, we have one of the best insolvency professions in the world. The Bill will de-professionalise what is a very successful profession. It will give an advantage to large insolvency firms, working against the smaller firms and new entrants to the market that Members on both sides of this House profess to support. In Committee, we warned that this change would represent a regulatory move, rather than a deregulatory one. Throughout their response, the Government were unable to come up with any serious support for the Bill.

The Solicitor-General said that the purpose of the Bill—its benefit—was to save money. When he was asked about that in Committee, he said that it costs £4,000 for each of these exams, and if someone only has to do two of them, they will save £4,000. He was also very critical of the insolvency profession, and then suggested that that saving will be passed on to the customers of insolvency practitioners. Many practitioners have been in the industry for some 20 years. The idea that, 20 years later, they are going to give some sort of discount because back then they saved themselves £4,000 bears no scrutiny.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 113

In Committee, the Solicitor-General described responses to the consultation on this change as “mixed”. That was an extraordinarily generous euphemism. Excluding the Secretary of State, just one out of seven recognised professional bodies in the field supports partial licences, and 75% of small firms undertake both corporate and personal insolvency procedures for commercial reasons, so it is the large players that are likely to be able to adopt partial licences. If any of the benefits that the Solicitor-General has laid out actually come to pass—I strongly suspect they will not—they will exclude small players from the insolvency market and make it very much the preserve of large companies. He is setting out to dumb down the profession rated by the World Bank as the seventh best in the world, judged on the basis of the amount returned to creditors and the speed of the process—two key aspects we would expect an insolvency regime to have. When I asked a turnaround specialist from Germany who was working in Chesterfield why he was working in the UK rather than back in his homeland, he told me, “Because your insolvency regime is so much better than ours.” He gave a list of reasons why we should be proud of what we have. Amazingly, this Government are coming to this House to make changes that would de-professionalise something that is tremendously successful and which do not enjoy the support of the industry. The major trade body representing insolvency practitioners calls for clause 17 to be not amended but scrapped, yet the Solicitor-General says he is doing this on behalf of the industry. This is a bizarre set of circumstances.

The Solicitor-General will be creating a three-tier system where, rather than there being one set of exams, people will operate in three different ways. The implications for Scotland, whose insolvency regime is very different, have not been laid out. Our amendment would delete the clause. Even if one accepts the Government’s arguments on personal insolvency specialists not needing corporate insolvency, saying in reverse that people who do corporate insolvency, which will often involve aspects of personal insolvency, do not need to have studied personal insolvency is bizarre. We think the Government are very misguided, as does the industry, and we strongly call on them to do the right thing, support our amendment and drop this clause.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) want to discuss their proposals, and despite the lack of scrutiny that these clauses will get, I will ensure that they get an opportunity to do so. However, I shall quickly speak on those measures from the Front Bench.

On Sunday trading, I support entirely what the Minister said, and I will not be supporting new clauses 10 to 14 for the following reasons: the Government promised that their emergency legislation for the Olympics was not a Trojan horse leading to further liberalisation of Sunday trading hours; the importance of Sunday trading legislation for employees; the broad, cross-party coalition supporting our current legislation in this area; the impact these proposed changes would have on small businesses and the convenience sector, which is very much under pressure; and the fact that these measures are being proposed in the way that they are, without any consultation on an issue that divides

23 Jun 2014 : Column 114

opinion tremendously. All those things mean that this Bill is entirely the wrong place for such measures to be introduced.

On new clauses 20 and 21, the Labour party is, as we said previously, absolutely committed to greater security for tenants and a long-term approach to the private rented market. It is revealing that at a time when the Labour party is proposing policies that will give tenants more security and certainty in their tenure, the Government are introducing something that specifically encourages more shorter-term lets. Just because their priorities are wrong, it does not mean that, individually, there is no merit in these new clauses, but they need to be considered carefully. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has made a strong case, and London Members from across the House are deeply concerned that the London letting market does not suffer from the problem of being too long term. I am very concerned that there should be proper consultation on these new clauses.

We think that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is important. We are very conscious that the Green party leader of Brighton council recently slammed the entire principle of right to buy, describing it as the

“biggest privatisation programme this country has ever seen.”

Right to buy is important. We need to help people who otherwise would not be able to access the housing market, as with so many in Cameron’s Britain; in 1997, it took the average family three years to save for a deposit on a home but now it takes about 22 years. Given that catastrophic record of this Government, in particular, it is important that right to buy is available, but it is also important that these properties are replaced.

As I have said, this group contains a huge number of measures. We will seek to divide the House on amendments 84 and 2. It is entirely wrong that Members have had so little time to discuss this group, but in order to give people the opportunity to discuss their proposals, I will leave my comments there.

Philip Davies:
I will be brief and do not intend to put any of my new clauses to the vote. My new clauses 10 to 14 deal with Sunday trading. They would completely liberalise the Sunday trading laws—that is what I would prefer—extend the current arrangements or put them on a more temporary basis. This country’s Sunday trading laws are out of date and absurd—they are completely unjustifiable. People talk about defending small shops, as the shadow Minister did, and say, “This measure helps small shops.” He has to realise that the world has moved on. The small convenience shops that are open on a Sunday are not Mr Miggins’s pie shop or Mrs Miggins’s greengrocers; the small convenience stores being protected by the current Sunday trading laws are Tesco Express, Sainsbury’s Local and Morrison’s Local.

Companies such as Tesco are probably quite pleased with the current arrangements, because they do not have to open their bigger stores, which sell goods at much lower prices. They can close the big stores and force everyone to go along to their small shops, where

23 Jun 2014 : Column 115

everyone has to pay a hugely inflated price for their shopping. Companies such as Asda cannot compete. The Labour party keeps saying, “We are concerned about the cost of living.” There is a cost of living crisis in this country, and what does it do? It opposes the measure that would have a massive effect on reducing the prices in the shops for people who shop on a Sunday. People are forced to go to higher priced shops such as Tesco Express rather than shop at a bigger store. It is absurd.

8.45 pm

I would like the arrangements in Scotland to be put in place here. Scotland has full liberalisation. Has the sky fallen in? There are many religious people, including Catholics and Protestants, in Scotland. They seem quite happy with the current arrangements. Has anyone heard of any big issues?

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the choice as to whether someone attends church or goes shopping is the same choice regardless of the number of hours that larger shops can remain open?

Philip Davies:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that he is a church warden. Most church services on a Sunday are at 10 or 11 o’clock in the morning when the shops are open.

Gavin Shuker rose—

Philip Davies:
I will press on because various people wish to speak. If we extended the Sunday trading hours there would be more opportunity for people to go to church at 10 or 11 o’clock on a Sunday morning.

Gavin Shuker rose—

Philip Davies:
I will not give way because others wish to speak. I am trying to ensure that other Members can get in.

Then we hear that this is all about protecting the workers. Again, that is an absurd argument. First, what about those people who want to work on a Sunday? I am talking about young people who are desperate to get a foot on the ladder and cannot get a job on a Sunday. The current regulations are depriving them of that. What a ridiculous situation. The Minister and shadow Minister say it is absolutely fine for people who work in a Tesco Express to work every hour that God sends on a Sunday. They can work from 6 am to 11 pm, yet if they worked in a big Tesco, they would have to be protected from working those long hours. It is a completely absurd argument. With the high street facing competition from the internet, we must give our shops the opportunity to compete. People can shop at all hours on the internet—[Interruption.] I will be two seconds, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am coming to a close. People can shop for any amount of time at Waitrose on the internet, or have their goods delivered at any hour on a Sunday, but they cannot go into a Waitrose to shop. Workers can take the orders online, but they cannot work in a shop. It is a completely absurd situation.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 116

My final amendment is about garden centres, which cannot open on a Sunday. I want people to think about that, because most garden centres are very small businesses. They might be big in area, but they are often small one-man bands. I do not see why they should be lumped in with companies such as Asda, Tesco or Morrisons, when they are only small businesses. I will leave my remarks there.

Caroline Lucas:
I have tabled a number of amendments in this group, but given that we are so pressed for time, I will speak to just one of them, new clause 8, which I hope to press to a vote.

I am deeply concerned about the lack of affordable housing, which is yet another indictment of this Government, who have turned their back on “generation rent”. Housing is undoubtedly at the heart of the concerns of my constituents in Brighton. That message comes across clearly from conversations on our city streets, in my surgeries and from the e-mails and letters I receive.

In addition to tackling things such as letting fees, housing standards and security of tenure in the private rented sector, it is absolutely crucial that we ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing. Yet this coalition’s slapdash, ill-thought-out approach to right to buy is undermining this. The Bill, as currently drafted, would reduce the eligibility period for the right to buy from five years to three years. Giving local authority tenants and some housing association tenants the opportunity to buy their home at a discounted price is not a bad thing in itself, but only on the strict condition that it does not jeopardise affordable housing supply, including the ability of housing associations to build new affordable housing.

The new clause would require the Government to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of right to buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and ask for an assessment to be carried out of changes since 2012 before further policy changes are made. Around 1.8 million households are waiting for a social home, which is an increase of 81% since 1997. The reality of right to buy is about much more than families being able to own their home. Last year, it was revealed that rich landowners are cashing in, buying up multiple ex-council properties and renting them back to people on endless housing waiting lists. In one London borough, as I said earlier, a third of council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords, some of whom own dozens of properties.

Far too often, the rich, not the poor, are the real beneficiaries of housing benefit. Currently, only one in every seven homes sold through right to buy has been replaced, and I find it astonishing that the Government are so complacent that they are not even monitoring the number of homes replaced following the preserved right to buy. Housing associations say that, in fact, the number is likely to be even less than one in seven. It is inexcusable that Ministers have not even consulted housing associations, which provide 2.5 million homes to more than 5 million people.

We are a rich country. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, we need a major programme of direct capital investment to build sustainable council housing, and the constraints on borrowing faced by local authorities should be lifted, so that councils can better meet demand for new homes. We must not inhibit the ability of

23 Jun 2014 : Column 117

housing associations to build more homes. This would ease pressure on the private market and, in turn, help rent levels and housing prices. Instead, we have the appalling situation where we are paying housing benefit to private landlords at extortionate market rates for good houses that once belonged to the taxpayer. It is a scandal.

Today, house prices speak for themselves. In my constituency, the average one-bedroom flat costs nearly six and three-quarter times the median household annual income, and three-bedroom houses cost more than 12 times. That is why I hope that people will support my new clause.

Mark Field:
I think I speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) when I express some concerns about what appears to be the anomalous situation in London with the short-term letting of residential properties. These proposals have caused enormous concern among communities in the heart of our capital.

The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 was originally introduced to ensure that London’s permanent housing stock would be protected from strong market pressure to convert homes into visitor accommodation, and was deemed wholly necessary to deal with the acute housing shortage that London was then experiencing. At that time, London had a population of some 7.5 million and declining. Its population now stands at 8.2 million and, as all London MPs know, increases at a breath-taking annual rate. It needs to be recognised that allowing greater flexibility to change use from permanent residential occupation to short-term letting will have significant implications for London’s stock of permanent housing. It may make it impossible for our local authorities to meet their targets for new homes.

My constituents have very good reason to believe that a loosening of the rules governing short lets, as set out in this somewhat ill-thought-through new clause 21, will make it much harder to keep their buildings safe, secure and well maintained. It risks undermining a sense of community that can be all too difficult to build in an essentially transient urban population. In fact, London’s hyper-mobility and hyper-diversity get greater year by year. It will make it far more difficult for local authorities to deal with noise and antisocial behaviour. Above all, it threatens to make central London homes, already traded by many people as some sort of global currency, into little more than assets to be exploited for maximum profit.

Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op):
I will be a little briefer than I would have ideally liked, but I am extremely obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak to amendment 2, which stands in my name. It would prevent the Government stopping local authorities specifying a higher standard of energy efficiency in new build properties until after the zero-carbon homes policy came into effect. To be clear, the Bill is intended to prevent local authorities from having autonomy, and my amendment would ensure that local authorities must adhere to as high a standard as possible.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 118

The UK’s housing stock is the least efficient in Europe. As a result, we have some of the worst fuel poverty statistics in Europe—only Estonia does worse than we do at the moment—because our housing stock is so old. A great deal of the discussions that take place here are about the challenge of retrofitting, whether through supplier obligations or things such as the green deal. Surely that puts a premium on us to ensure that the new build standards are as high as possible.

The Labour Government introduced the zero-carbon homes policy, with the intention of implementing it by 2016. It was an excellent policy, with a clear implementation framework that allowed the private sector to produce the plans to deliver it. This Government have successfully undermined that policy. The definition was changed substantially some time ago, and that was further diluted in the Queen’s Speech. I am afraid that I do not have a great deal of faith in this Government’s Department for Communities and Local Government to deliver zero-carbon homes, but even if the Government tried to do so, what would happen between now and 2016?

Many people will take a localist view, to which I am sympathetic. The constituency I represent covers a substantial part of the green belt between Greater Manchester and Derbyshire, and if that green belt comes under pressure from new build, I believe we should be able to argue that the standard should be as high as possible for those homes. However, I appreciate that that would widen the debate too much, and I hope that a focus on preventing clause 30 from coming into effect until zero-carbon homes are in operation will command as much support as possible.

Of course, if the Government are sincere in backing zero-carbon homes, they have nothing to fear from my amendment—it would make no difference to a Government committed to delivering an ambitious zero-carbon homes policy in 2016. However, the issues of sustainability, efficient use of energy, and fuel poverty, as well as public acceptance of new build housing, which affects all of us, are so important that I will, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, seek to divide the House on my amendment, as well as appeal to the other place to give the matter the due attention it deserves.

Ms Buck:
I want briefly to reinforce the points made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) relating to concerns about the impact that the relaxation of the rules on short-term letting proposed by new clause 21 will have.

Most of the inner-London local authorities, across the parties, and the amenity and residential associations in Westminster have raised three main objections to the relaxation of the rules. The first relates to the loss of residential stock. As we have heard, the pressure on inner-London residential stock is already acute, and the amount of money involved in the hotel and tourism trade is such that the sector is already eroding extremely rapidly. A further relaxation of the rules is likely to lead to a further diminution of stock in areas such as Lancaster Gate, Bayswater, Maida Vale and St John’s Wood in my constituency and, of course, in south Westminster.

The second issue is the cost involved and the resources needed for enforcement. We already know from Westminster council that, as the rules stand, an average of about 500 enforcement actions have been taken against short-term lets. The Government’s proposed rule change is likely to

23 Jun 2014 : Column 119

make it even more difficult and even more expensive for local authorities to enforce the rules. They will have to demonstrate not that a property is being let short term, but that it is in habitual short-term use, which is a much more difficult and higher bar to overcome, and it is likely to lead to a burden on council tax and resources.

The third issue relates to residential properties such as mansion blocks, which are very attractive properties for the purpose of short-term letting. The rapid turnover of tenants resulting from short-term lets means that a sense of neighbourliness and community is being eroded. It also leads to a higher incidence of antisocial behaviour, such as problems with noise and rubbish collection. That is not necessarily because the tenants or holidaymakers are antisocial, but simply, in common with boarding houses, bed and breakfasts and hotels, because the situation generates more of that kind of behaviour. That will also lead to additional problems, and there are real concerns.

Of course, we do not want to have to take enforcement action. The classic example, raised on the back of the Olympics, is that people might want to do a home swap or let their property for a fortnight.

Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab):
I think that all inner-London MPs will agree with my hon. Friend and her fellow Westminster MP, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). The consequences may be unintended, but they will put more pressure on the private and rented market, where at the moment nobody is able to get a property with decent rent. This will simply make things more difficult and more complicated in that market.

Ms Buck:
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—those are exactly what the consequences will be. No one wants enforcement action to be taken against someone who lets their home for a few days or a couple of weeks, or who does a home swap, but there will be unintended consequences in a high-value, high-turnover and high-pressured area such as central London. Kensington and Westminster councils have made it clear that it is not those sorts of letters against whom they would take enforcement action, but the persistent trade in short-term lets. I hope the Government will think very carefully when they draw up the regulations for the enforcement of this particular provision.

Mr Nuttall:
Whether Sunday is special or not is a personal choice everyone must make for themselves. Let us not forget that for some people, choosing to go shopping on a Sunday evening may be what makes Sunday special for them. Personally, I hope that they will choose to go to church on a Sunday morning, but that is a matter for them. I hope that, regardless of the number of hours that a larger shop remains open, individuals will decide for themselves whether to go to church or to go shopping. It is a matter for them and—

9 pm

It being one hour before the moment of interruption, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 14 May.)

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 120

Question agreed to.

New clause 3 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 6

Power of HMRC to disclose information for purposes of certain litigation

‘(1) The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may disclose information held by them—

(a) to a person who is entitled to bring proceedings under the fatal accidents legislation or for whose benefit such proceedings may be brought, for use in connection with the proceedings or in reaching a settlement without the need to bring proceedings;

(b) to a person who is entitled to bring proceedings for damages for personal injury for the benefit of the estate of a deceased person, for use in connection with the proceedings or in reaching a settlement without the need to bring proceedings;

(c) to a person who has made or who wishes to make an application for a payment under the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme on the basis that he or she is eligible for such a payment under section 3 of the Mesothelioma Act 2014 (eligibility of dependants for payments under the Scheme), for use in connection with the application.

This amendment allows Revenue and Customs officials to disclose information HMRC holds to persons entitled to make claims under fatal accidents legislation, to persons entitled to bring proceedings for personal injury for the benefit of a deceased person’s estate or to persons claiming to be eligible under section 3 of the Mesothelioma Act 2014 for a payment under the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme

.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Combining different forms of subordinate legislation

‘(1) Any provision that may be made by order, regulations or rules made by statutory instrument may be made by any other of those forms of legislation made by statutory instrument.

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the procedure for making the instrument.

(3) A reference in any enactment or other instrument to an order, regulations or rules under an enactment (however expressed) includes a reference to provision made under it because of subsection (1).

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any power of the Welsh Ministers to make provision by statutory instrument.’—(The Solicitor-General.)

This clause allows powers to make an order, regulations or rules to be used to make a combined instrument. At the moment it is sometimes necessary to make several instruments on a single topic because the enabling powers are expressed differently. In appropriate cases, using a single instrument would allow the legislation to be set out in a more coherent way and in one place.

“215A Statutory periodic tenancies: deposit received before 6 April 2007

(1) This section applies where—

(a) before 6 April 2007, a tenancy deposit has been received by a landlord in connection with a fixed term shorthold tenancy, and

(b) on or after that date, a periodic shorthold tenancy is deemed to arise under section 5 of the Housing Act 1988 on the coming to an end of the fixed term tenancy.

(2) If, on the commencement date—

(a) the periodic tenancy is in existence, and

(b) all or part of the deposit paid in connection with the fixed term tenancy continues to be held in connection with the periodic tenancy,

section 213 applies in respect of the deposit that continues to be held in connection with the periodic tenancy, and any additional deposit held in connection with that tenancy, with the modifications set out in subsection (3).

(3) The modifications are that, instead of the things referred to in section 213(3) and (5) being required to be done within the time periods set out in section 213(3) and (6)(b), those things are required to be done—

(a) before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the commencement date, or

(b) (if earlier) before the first day after the commencement date on which a court does any of the following in respect of the periodic tenancy—

(i) determines an application under section 214 or decides an appeal against a determination under that section;

(ii) makes a determination as to whether to make an order for possession in proceedings under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 or decides an appeal against such a determination.

(4) If, on the commencement date—

(a) the periodic tenancy is no longer in existence, or

(b) no deposit continues to be held in connection with the periodic tenancy,

the requirements of section 213(3), (5) and (6) are treated as if they had been complied with by the landlord in respect of any deposit that was held in connection with the periodic tenancy.

(5) In this section and sections 215B to 215D “the commencement date” means the date on which section(Tenancy deposits)of the Deregulation Act 2014 is fully in force in England and Wales.

215B Statutory periodic tenancies: deposit received on or after 6 April 2007

(1) This section applies where—

(a) on or after 6 April 2007, a tenancy deposit has been received by a landlord in connection with a fixed term shorthold tenancy,

(b) the requirements of section 213(3), (5) and (6) have been complied with by the landlord in respect of the deposit held in connection with the fixed term tenancy,

(c) a periodic shorthold tenancy is deemed to arise under section 5 of the Housing Act 1988 on the coming to an end of the fixed term tenancy, and

(d) when the periodic tenancy arises, the deposit paid in connection with the fixed term tenancy continues to be held—

(i) in connection with the periodic tenancy, and

23 Jun 2014 : Column 122

(ii) in accordance with the same authorised scheme as when the requirements of section 213(3), (5) and (6) were last complied with in respect of it.

(2) The requirements of section 213(3), (5) and (6) are treated as if they had been complied with by the landlord in respect of the deposit held in connection with the periodic tenancy.

215C Renewed fixed term or contractual periodic tenancies: deposit received on or after 6 April 2007

(1) This section applies where—

(a) on or after 6 April 2007, a tenancy deposit has been received by a landlord in connection with a shorthold tenancy (“the original tenancy”),

(b) the requirements of section 213(5) and (6) have been complied with by the landlord in respect of the deposit held in connection with the original tenancy,

(c) a new fixed term or periodic shorthold tenancy (“the new tenancy”) comes into being on the coming to an end of the original tenancy or a tenancy that replaces the original tenancy,

(d) the new tenancy is not one that is deemed to arise under section 5 of the Housing Act 1988,

(e) the new tenancy replaces the original tenancy, and

(f) when the new tenancy comes into being, the deposit paid in connection with the original tenancy continues to be held—

(i) in connection with the new tenancy, and

(ii) in accordance with the same authorised scheme as when the requirements of section 213(5) and (6) were last complied with in respect of it.

(2) The requirements of section 213(5) and (6) are treated as if they had been complied with by the landlord in respect of the deposit held in connection with the new tenancy.

(3) The condition in subsection (1)(a) may be met in respect of a tenancy even if—

(a) it replaces an earlier tenancy, and

(b) the tenancy deposit was first received in connection with the earlier tenancy (either before or after 6 April 2007).

(4) For the purposes of this section, a tenancy replaces another tenancy if—

(a) the landlord and tenant under the later tenancy are the same as under the earlier tenancy, and

(b) the premises let under the later tenancy are the same or substantially the same as those let under the earlier tenancy.

215D Sections 215A to 215C: transitional provisions

(1) Sections 215A to 215C are treated as having had effect since 6 April 2007, subject to the following provisions of this section.

(2) Sections 215A to 215C do not have effect in relation to—

(a) a claim under section 214 of this Act or section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of a tenancy which is settled before the commencement date (whether or not proceedings in relation to the claim have been instituted), or

(b) proceedings under either of those sections in respect of a tenancy which have been finally determined before the commencement date.

(3) Subsection (5) applies in respect of a tenancy if—

(a) proceedings under section 214 in respect of the tenancy have been instituted before the commencement date but have not been settled or finally determined before that date, and

(b) because of section 215A(4), 215B(2) or section 215C(2), the court decides—

(i) not to make an order under section 214(4) in respect of the tenancy, or

(ii) to allow an appeal by the landlord against such an order.

23 Jun 2014 : Column 123

(4) Subsection (5) also applies in respect of a tenancy if—

(a) proceedings for possession under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of the tenancy have been instituted before the commencement date but have not been settled or finally determined before that date, and

(b) because of section 215A(4), 215B(2) or 215C(2), the court decides—

(i) to make an order for possession under that section in respect of the tenancy, or

(ii) to allow an appeal by the landlord against a refusal to make such an order.

(5) Where this subsection applies, the court must not order the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) to pay the landlord’s costs, to the extent that the court reasonably considers those costs are attributable to the proceedings under section 214 or (as the case may be) section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.

(6) Proceedings have been “finally determined” for the purposes of this section if —

(a) they have been determined by a court, and

(b) there is no further right to appeal against the determination.

(7) There is no further right to appeal against a court determination if there is no right to appeal against the determination, or there is such a right but—

(a) the time limit for making an appeal has expired without an appeal being brought, or

(b) an appeal brought within that time limit has been withdrawn.”’—(The Solicitor-General.)

Where the tenancy deposit protection requirements have been complied with by a landlord for a tenancy, this amendment means they do not need to be complied with again for a replacement tenancy. Where those requirements did not apply to the first tenancy, and a replacement statutory periodic tenancy is still in place, the amendment provides extra time for compliance.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

Short-term use of London accommodation: power to relax restrictions

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for circumstances in which the use as temporary sleeping accommodation of any residential premises in Greater London does not involve a material change of use by virtue of section 25(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973.

(2) Regulations under this section may also make provision for and in connection with enabling the Secretary of State or a local planning authority to direct that provision included in the regulations by virtue of subsection (1) does not apply to particular residential premises or to residential premises situated in a particular area.

(3) Regulations under this section may amend the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6) In this section, “local planning authority” has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see section 336(1) of that Act).’—(The Solicitor-General.)

Section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 provides that the use as temporary sleeping accommodation of residential premises in Greater London involves a material

23 Jun 2014 : Column 124
change of use of the premises (with the result that planning permission is required). This amendment allows the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation specifying circumstances when this does not apply (so that planning permission is not required).

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Electoral Commission: changes to facilitate efficient administration

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (the Electoral Commission) is amended as follows.

(2) Paragraph 15 (five-year plan) is amended as set out in subsections (3) and (4).

(3) In sub-paragraph (1), after “paragraph 14” insert “in respect of the first financial year to begin after the day on which Parliament meets for the first time following a parliamentary general election,”.

(4) After that sub-paragraph insert—

“(1A) The Speaker’s Committee may require the Commission to submit a plan under sub-paragraph (1) when the Commission submit such an estimate as is mentioned in paragraph 14 in respect of a financial year other than one mentioned in that sub-paragraph.”

(5) In paragraph 16 (annual examination of Commission by Comptroller and Auditor General), in sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) after “paragraphs 14 and 15” insert “in respect of any year when both an estimate under paragraph 14 and a five-year plan under paragraph 15 are submitted to them,”;

(b) for “in each year” substitute “before the Committee consider the estimate and plan”.

Currently, there is an annual requirement for the Electoral Commission to produce a five-year plan and for the Comptroller and Auditor General to provide an audit report on the Commission. The new clause alters this so that the requirements to produce a five-year plan and an audit report apply in respect of the first year of a new Parliament and subsequently as required by the Speaker’s Committee.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

LGBC for England: changes to facilitate efficient administration

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (Local Government Boundary Commission for England) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 5 (committees), for sub-paragraph (3) substitute—

“(3) A committee established under this paragraph to review the economy, efficiency or effectiveness with which the Commission has used its resources, or any sub-committee of such a committee, may include up to two people who are not also members of the Commission (“independent members”).

(4) The Commission may not appoint as an independent member anyone who would be ineligible for appointment as a member of the Commission because of paragraph 1(3).

(5) An independent member must be appointed on such terms and conditions, including terms and conditions as to remuneration, as the Commission may determine.

(6) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3), only a member of the Commission may be a member of one of its committees or sub-committees.”

23 Jun 2014 : Column 125

(3) Paragraph 12 (five-year plan) is amended as set out in subsections (4) and (5).

(4) In sub-paragraph (1), after “paragraph 11” insert “in respect of the first financial year to begin after the day on which Parliament meets for the first time following a parliamentary general election”.

(5) After that sub-paragraph insert—

“(1A) The Speaker’s Committee may require the Commission to submit a plan under sub-paragraph (1) when the Commission submits such an estimate as is mentioned in paragraph 11 in respect of a financial year other than one mentioned in that sub-paragraph.”

(a) for “For the purposes of paragraphs 11 and 12” substitute “For the purpose of assisting the Speaker’s Committee to discharge their functions under paragraphs 11 and 12 in respect of any year when both an estimate under paragraph 11 and a five-year plan under paragraph 12 are submitted to them,”;

(b) for “in each year” substitute “before the Committee consider the estimate and plan”.

This new clause enables the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to appoint independent members to its audit committee. It also changes the current annual requirement for the production of a five-year plan and an audit report to a requirement in respect of the first year of a new Parliament and subsequently as required by the Speaker’s Committee.